English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-11-09 00:00:28 · 11 answers · asked by crap_giz 1 in Politics & Government Military

11 answers

I think so yes...I think they should have done so the moment they realized they could not be of any help.

2006-11-09 00:03:22 · answer #1 · answered by rinah 6 · 0 0

Accept that the Middle East is a complex puzzle nations made up of tribes that compete for power. This puzzle was loosley held together with a nervous peace for many years following WW I. Once the USA dropped its support of the stable Shah of Iran in the mid 1970's (Carter doctrine) - it began to fall apart with massive friction between the tribes and no real control. For a time, Saddam himself kept the puzzle loosley stable and held off a major attack on his country by Iran (millions died). He continued to maintain some sense of order through draconian measures of murder and torture of his own subjects (mostly of different tribes from his own). Then, he himself decided to be the aggressor and the puzzle broke in some major places. Enter the US in 1991 to clean up some of that mess. Now imagine the whole region as a clay pot that is held together with some weak glue. At last - the tribal frictions began to affect the world in a major way and not just their own regions. Witness 9/11, Spain, Indonesia. the 2003 invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam H. essentially "broke the pot" scattering the tribal pieces all over the floor ... The old adage holds true. "If you break it , you fix it." Add to the importance of fixing it ... that Iran (mostly one of the tribes involved) now has nuclear capacity and would likely use it on Iraq if there were no US Presense there at this point. Iraq is not glued back enough yet to hold off a smashing nuclear threat from Iran - or even a non-nuclear one.
In a couple of years, the Iraqi Army will be rebuilt and its government solid enough (we hope) to have internal stability and withstand threats from its extremist tribal neighbors. The US does not want to be there any longer than it absolutely has to to fix the broken pot.
Meanwhile, the tribal extremist jihadist Islamists have continued to take their war to "The West" and the world remains under threat of their terroristic warfare. Leaving Iraq without "fixing the pot will give these evil and misguided extremists (funded largely by oil money they receive from the very nations they wish to destroy) validation of their methodology.

2006-11-09 08:19:14 · answer #2 · answered by Me3TV 2 · 0 0

USA has to save its face after getting it smeared by the false nuclear propaganda against Iraq before thinking of withdrawal. Now that they have interfered into the internal matters of a sovereign nation on the false plea of building up of nuclear arsenal by Saddam and Saddam is being hanged for 'crime against humanity', it will be difficult to just withdraw. But sooner or later, Bush must be thinking how to get out of the whole mess as a face saving device, so that US blood is not shed on foreign soil without a genuine cause. American madness for world supremacy must be over in a changed world.

2006-11-09 20:50:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No. That would be idiotic. Despite what many are saying, we still have a chance to have a stable Democracy there. We should hold on while their government gets stronger. If they continue to improve at the pace they have so far, then we could probably start pulling out before Bush's term is up.

If we just pull our troops out before the country can sustain itself, we will have an oil rich Afghanistan on our hands....

2006-11-09 08:03:22 · answer #4 · answered by Eric 2 · 0 0

We cant leave Iraq and Leave the whole war behind we have to finish it, you can spill the milk and walk away you need to clean it up even though many soldiers are dieying, we also have to understand that is for all of our well-being, if we dont finish the war they are going to come back and attack us, like they did in September 11

2006-11-09 08:03:13 · answer #5 · answered by Beautiful Me! 3 · 0 0

We need to stay in Iraq for the safety of America. Since the invasion, we have found plans to attack America, on our homeland. We have also caught, and killed terrorists that have one goal in life, and that is too kill Americans.

Iraqi forces also say that in 12-18 months they will be able to defend themselves. I give it 2 years before major pullouts start to happen.

2006-11-09 09:01:49 · answer #6 · answered by Chopper 4 · 0 0

Yes, we need to leave. I wonder if any of the folks who are insisting that the US stay in Irag have lost anyone or have any family or close friends currently risking their lives for a war we shouldn't even have begun. I have, it gives you a totally different perspective.

2006-11-09 08:20:01 · answer #7 · answered by Kanakili_Uiilani 2 · 0 0

No we need to finish what we started even if it was the wrong idea to go in the first place. We are there now and have too much invested to just walk away now.

2006-11-09 08:04:47 · answer #8 · answered by deniver2003 4 · 0 0

no, the U.S troops have reached the point of no return pretty much the moment they started in 2003.
the place has decended into hell, and it's only going to get worse if the troops pull out

2006-11-09 08:04:38 · answer #9 · answered by jivesucka 6 · 0 0

How about we step back and let them fight amongst themselves then we go back in when it's all over?

2006-11-09 08:03:08 · answer #10 · answered by barkel76 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers